From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #16 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, January 12 2002 Volume 11 : Number 016 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Imac, Umac, we all Mac? [Ken Weingold ] Re: the angel in the house [Viv Lyon ] user interface ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism [steve ] a staunch moment of political bullshit [glen uber ] Re: who has the oldest computer? [Johnathan Vail ] Re: the angel in the house ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism [gSs ] RE: a staunch moment of libertarianism ["Larry O'Brien" ] Re: the angel in the house [The Great Quail ] Re: the angel in the house ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: the angel in the house [Viv Lyon ] Re: If you think the iMac looks silly.... ["Fric Chaud" ] re: Imac, Umac, we all Mac? ["Fric Chaud" ] Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: reading [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:17:35 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Imac, Umac, we all Mac? On Fri, Jan 11, 2002, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > Here's my $.02 on the whole "Whose processor is faster" conundrum. A > friend of mine once said, "If your CPU is 50% faster, do you get 50% > more work done?" I think the answer to that is "No." But you do get > 50% more game playing done -- and that's what's driving processor > innovation nowadays anyway, right? The gaming industry has been driving the computer processor and other areas for at least ten years now. I remember in I think '92 when my friend got this super fast drool-worthy 486DX2-66. He bought Wing Commander for it, and minimum requirements were I think just around there, faster than what almost anyone currently had. I had a 386DX25 at the time. > People (everyday, mom 'n pop computer users, I think) regard *speed* > not as number of instructions per cycle, but how long it takes them > to get their email or buy the latest Harry Potter book online. It's > a wonder to me how AOL can be so popular with such an awful interface. "With customers so easy to use, no wonder we're #1." - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:19:50 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: the angel in the house On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Natalie Jane wrote: > >Similar tendencies to de-humanize women are often called misogyny, >whether > >the de-humaniztion is favorable or disfavorable. > > I disagree with this. I generally see the term "misogyny" being used in its > literal sense, and I don't think it would be used to describe, for instance, > the Victorian concept of women as angelic creatures that musn't be tainted > with earthly concerns like voting or owning property. I somehow knew, as I stepped out of the shower this morning, that I'd have to defend this some more. Not that I really expect to convince anyone that I'm right and the dictionary is wrong, but I'll still have a go, just for the hell of it. > Such de-humanization is simply sexist - it doesn't imply outright > *hatred* of women a la Dave Sim. Viewing women as disgusting, evil, > or repellent, on the other hand, is truly misogynist. In my opinion (and possibly only there), viewing women as anything less than human (demons, animals, forces of nature, angels) is in a very real sense _hatred_ of women as women. It is an effort to make them conform to a certain world view by stripping them of their humanity and pasting something else on top of it. > There is definitely an eliding between the two... sexism can slip into > misogyny, as it often did during the Victorian period, but I do think > that they are separate phenomena. I agree that they are _often_ separate phenomena. Sexism, like racism, doesn't have to be a systematic viewpoint but can arise in individual cirsumstances, and is often employed with good intentions in mind. In the past, I have been so naive as to say things like "I would vote for whatever woman ran for president"- just to get a woman into office. What a stupid sexist thing to say- but I meant it in a good way. I think a woman could perform the office of president, and do a good job. But voting her in just because of her sex and no other reason is sexism. Misogyny, on the other hand, is a world view that permeates a person's perspective. Maybe that's how my definition of misogyny differs from the dictionary definition. A person who doesn't systematically view one sex as fundamentally _other_ can act in a sexist way, but misogynists and misandrists will act in sexist ways much more regularly. > Interesting that the dictionary included men in its definition of sexism... I guess that is unfortunately surprising, given that society has difficulty recognizing anything other than anti-woman sexism as sexism. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:20:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: user interface > From: Viv Lyon > Subject: ohmigod, owls are so cool My favorite ever Onion banner headline thingy says "Owls Are Assholes." I can't look at it without cracking up. Second prize goes to "Fiona Apple Releases Egg Sac." > From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." > It's > a wonder to me how AOL can be so popular with such an > awful interface. It's all about the user population. AOL is big, a lot of people use it, it's supposed to be easy to try out, and you get a zillion hours free. These qualities all seem to lower the barrier of entry to people who generally _expect_ computers to be difficult to use and who don't have anything to compare AOL to, which I think still includes a majority of the population. A regular ISP still seems a little difficult to set up to the sort of person who double-clicks hyperlinks, and guess what? They're right. > Implement > the perfect > interface and people won't worry about processors > anymore, I think. As a (fellow?) usability professional I should cheer this remark, but I think it's rather optimistic. :) At the very least, consider that an aspect of "the perfect interface" would be response time, and that is to some extent tied to processor speed. > I've been reading Alan Cooper's "The Inmates Are Running > The Asylum" > which discusses the shortcomings of the contemporary > computer > interface, and I tend to agree with most of what Cooper's > saying. That's an excellent book. The only place where I differ with Cooper is his bizarre belief that user testing is unnecessary if the UI designer is clever enough. In my experience _no_ one is that clever. Drew ===== - -- Andrew D. Simchik, adsimchik@yahoo.com Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:32:29 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 09:17 AM, gSs wrote: > Conservatives hate libertarians as much as liberals hate libertarians. > Why > is this? More, because Conservatives are all about Power and Control. Besides, most Liberals are really not very good at hate. - - Steve __________ One of the president's close acquaintances outside the White House said Mr. Bush clearly feels he has encountered his reason for being, a conviction informed and shaped by the president's own strain of Christianity. "I think, in his frame, this is what God has asked him to do," the acquaintance said. - Frank Bruni, NYT, on Bush's new war ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:48:02 -0800 From: glen uber Subject: a staunch moment of political bullshit On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:32:29 -0600 steve said: >On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 09:17 AM, gSs wrote: > >> Conservatives hate libertarians as much as liberals hate libertarians. >> Why >> is this? > >More, because Conservatives are all about Power and Control. Besides, >most Liberals are really not very good at hate. One of the more interesting quotes I've heard about the difference between left and right came from SF Talk Show host, Ronn Owens. He is probably best classified as a conservative Democrat (socially he leans left, fiscally he leans right). The quote was along the lines of, "Conservatives seem to love individuals, but aren't too fond of groups of people. Liberals seem to love helping groups of people but don't really get along well with individuals." Reminded me of the line from Clerks: "I hate people, but I love crowds." I think he was talking specifically about politicians rather than everyday citizens, but it sure got me to thinking. I mean, generally I get along better with individuals than with groups of people, especially if those groups have a political, social, or religious agenda. Maybe I'm really a conservative and don't know it. What's a misanthropic greeny like me to do? - -- Cheers! - -g- "If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs." - --David Daye ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:46:32 -0500 From: Johnathan Vail Subject: Re: who has the oldest computer? From: "Russ Reynolds" > Until this year I had a non-functional Apple II+ which I threw out > (but kept for years because I just *liked* it) and a Mac Classic > which I gave away. color? WOW! I've still got my very first mac. They tell me it's a Mac Plus--was that the first model? Because I got that thing for Christmas in 1983, a good month before it was unveiled in the infamous 1984 Super Bowl commercial. I always thought it was just a plain old Macintosh. "The computer you already know how to use." I think there was an upgrade to Mac+ for the original Mac so it could be original with an upgrade? I still have an original 1978 "Red Book" Apple ][. I remember when we got it we bought 16K of RAM because we knew that 4K would be too small pretty quick and you couldn't do Hires graphics with less than 8. It has a couple of homebrew mods to it like an alternate character set ROM (I hacked a 2716 EPROM over the 2513 mask ROM with a switch on the back to toggle which font you want). I also hacked the ROM sockets to take normal EPROMs so that I could add The Inspector ROM (pirated). I have a hard drive for as well as some cassette tape games and stuff. I also still have a couple of ASR-33 teletypes. One of which was used as a printer for my Apple around 1980. I have a current loop converter and hope to restore one of these to use as a console on the linux box. The keyboard senders seem to be gummed up or something but I might be able to decouple the keyboards and just use one for output. I have a couple cases of paper and a case of ribbons and 2 cases of paper tape... jv <- older than dirt. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:04:29 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: the angel in the house At 12:19 PM 1/11/2002 -0800, Viv Lyon wrote: >In my opinion (and possibly only there), viewing women as anything less >than human (demons, animals, forces of nature, angels) is in a very real >sense _hatred_ of women as women. It is an effort to make them conform to >a certain world view by stripping them of their humanity and pasting >something else on top of it. I thought of this argument myself after I went home yesterday, but I don't completely agree with it. While a de-humanizing view of women, even a supposedly "positive" one (angels, purest virgins, etc.), could quite definitely stem from a hatred of women as you describe, I don't think it's always, or even very often, the case. Such a view could just as easily arise without an intentional effort, from utter ignorance or laziness. I'm not defending the resulting stereotype, or its effects on a society or culture, but merely asserting that prejudicial, misleading views do not always derive from hate. In fact, more often, I think the hate comes afterwards, after the misconception becomes accepted as fact. Sexism creates misogyny more often than misogyny produces sexism. Ignorance and misunderstanding lead to ill-will and finally hate. This might be another stupid "chicken or egg" argument, but I find myself agreeing with gNat (excuse the sexist diminutive nickname) in the sense that I see a need to make a clear distinction between the two words. I also see it necessary to always, always, always "assume innocence," and without ample evidence, refrain from accusing an artist (or anyone) of intentional maliciousness or hate. This issue of positive dehumanization has concerned me for awhile, but more often I find myself considering the ramifications of such portrayals in terms of race. One thing, for example, that bugs me a lot in Western art is the degree of "Asian exoticism" that you sometimes find, especially in certain films - and the Asian stereotypes that you often see, which seem beneficial at first glance (wise, mysterious, mathematically inclined) but are morally repugnant for the same reason Viv mentioned. They strip people of their humanity. I just don't agree that it's always a conscious attempt. At the same time, it can be a useful artistic tool to portray universal elements of human nature as ideal concepts, as symbolic personifications, be they male or female, Cauasian or Asian, whatever. Just because an author chooses such a device in a particular case, such a choice does not necessarily reflect his outlook overall toward a race or gender. I haven't read enough Stephenson to really know, but from what I have, I'm guessing he's just a poor author, incapable of flushing out characters of either gender beyond comic book two-dimensionality. Are his portrayals of men really any better? - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:14:20 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, steve wrote: > More, because Conservatives are all about Power and Control. Besides, > most Liberals are really not very good at hate. That's kinda funny, at least to a libertarian. Are those traditional or contemporary references. I guess that will actually determine how funny it is, to a libertarian at least. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:19:10 -0500 From: "Larry O'Brien" Subject: RE: a staunch moment of libertarianism Everybody knowss that conservatives are fascist pigs, liberals are communist pinko acid heads, and libertarians are martini swilling crackpots that espouse conspiracy theories. What we need in America is a Monster Raving Loony Party. - -----Original Message----- From: gSs [mailto:gshell@metronet.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:14 PM To: car pot Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, steve wrote: > More, because Conservatives are all about Power and Control. Besides, > most Liberals are really not very good at hate. That's kinda funny, at least to a libertarian. Are those traditional or contemporary references. I guess that will actually determine how funny it is, to a libertarian at least. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:24:18 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: a staunch moment of libertarianism At 04:19 PM 1/11/2002 -0500, Larry O'Brien wrote: >Everybody knowss that conservatives are fascist pigs, liberals are >communist pinko acid heads, and libertarians are martini swilling crackpots >that espouse conspiracy theories. What we need in America is a Monster >Raving Loony Party. Isn't that what the Reform Party is for? Jason ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:26:33 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism Did someone forget to tell Larry about the meeting? > What we need in America is a Monster > Raving Loony Party. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:30:28 -0500 From: "Larry O'Brien" Subject: RE: a staunch moment of libertarianism http://www.omrlp.com/ - -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wells [mailto:mwells@imageworksmfg.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:27 PM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism Did someone forget to tell Larry about the meeting? > What we need in America is a Monster > Raving Loony Party. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:35:27 -0500 From: "Larry O'Brien" Subject: RE: a staunch moment of libertarianism I don't know about you, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if our leaders all got mohawks and ran around the streets waving giant inflatable bananas. - -----Original Message----- From: Larry O'Brien Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:30 PM To: Mike Wells; fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: RE: a staunch moment of libertarianism http://www.omrlp.com/ - -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wells [mailto:mwells@imageworksmfg.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:27 PM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism Did someone forget to tell Larry about the meeting? > What we need in America is a Monster > Raving Loony Party. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:54:25 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: dubious one-liners Natalie sez: >My dictionary defines misogyny simply as "hatred of women." Sexism is >defined as "1. Prejudice against the female sex; 2. Any arbitrary >stereotyping of males and females on the basis of their gender." >Interesting that the dictionary included men in its definition of sexism... hm. Only in one part. I suggest you should get a dictionary that lists sexism as '1. prejudice against either the female or male sex', rather than sticking with the sexist dictionary you've got ;) >> Conservatives hate libertarians as much as liberals hate libertarians. Why >> is this? hey - I hope I'm not the only liberal (by US standards) that doesn't hate libertarians! I dislike their views, but I don't hate the people themselves... James PS - happy birthday Russ! Real subtle hint, that... James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:59:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Dancing about attributions On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Russ Reynolds wrote: > > my 2 cents or so...Elvis Costello probably said it first. > > maybe because that's who i've almost always heard said it, but to me it > sounds more like something Steve Martin would say than any of the > others. Funny: I've always thought it sounded more like something Costello would say than almost any of the other attributed sources. And the fact that no one has cited a printed source for the quote from anyone other than EC settles the issue for me - unless Costello comes out and says he heard it elsewhere. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Any noise that is unrelenting eventually becomes music:: __Paula Carino__ - --and yes, of course, the phrase is the source of my site's name ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:28:15 -0600 From: steve Subject: If you think the iMac looks silly.... Take a look at some PC designs from Intel land - http://developer.intel.com/technology/easeofuse/conceptpc.htm Off to see Brotherhood Of The Wolf tomorrow in Big D, with a quick side trip to see if the Apple store has a new iMac on display - Steve __________ Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, the bumbling, tongue-tied Dick Armey announces his retirement as House majority leader and the shrewd, malevolent Tom DeLay, now Republican whip, moves quickly-and probably successfully-to succeed him. - Cragg Hines, Houston Chronicle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:24:17 -0800 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: the angel in the house Viv writes, >In my opinion (and possibly only there), viewing women as anything less >than human (demons, animals, forces of nature, angels) is in a very real >sense _hatred_ of women as women. It is an effort to make them conform to >a certain world view by stripping them of their humanity and pasting >something else on top of it. But that is not what *hatred* means. You are, in essence, making a judgment call on the motivations behind a wide field of actions with little or no data. You should not ascribe hatred equally as the motivation to one man who sees women as pure Godesses and another who sees them as irrational beasts good only for sex, cooking, and making the toilet water magically turn blue every two weeks. A Don Quixote-like knight-in-shining-armour fellow who idealizes women may indeed be fitting them into his own world-view, and stripping them *partially* of humanity (in the sense that flaws are part of humanity), but that may not done out of a hatred-based motive, and would therefore *not* be hatred, nor would it be a case of misogyny. You may see it as bankrupt, inept, wrong-headed, stupid, infantilizing or even belittling; but by calling it hatred, you are playing the part of deliberately contrarian psychologist; and by then applying the label of misogyny, you are bending a word to your own ideas. >Maybe that's how my definition of misogyny differs from the >dictionary definition. The meaning of words may indeed shift, but we have to agree that the signifier does indeed signify something, or dialogue is crippled. In other words, a definition is something that a collective must agree on -- a single person cannot define an existing term, only "redefine" it incorrectly. Otherwise language becomes even more useless for communication. In other words, you may *believe* that "misogyny" should have a broader definition, but it does not; and you attempt to apply it against agreed convention will probably lead to a higher noise/signal ratio and thereby obscure the otherwise valid points you may be trying to make. Neal Stephenson is demonstrably sexist, but not demonstrably misogynistic, and to say that he "hates women" probably does more harm than good. >I guess that is unfortunately surprising, given that society has >difficulty recognizing anything other than anti-woman sexism as sexism. Well, there is an argument -- and I do not subscribe to it -- that terms like sexism and racism have and institutional/social vector, and involve positioning in a power-based hierarchy. By this token, a Black man in America cannot be racist, and a woman cannot be sexist. The Black may hate whitey, and the woman be a bull dyke from hell; but they lack the power structures to support their prejudices and make them into an "-ism." Please note, I do not at all subscribe to this viewpoint; indeed, it makes me angry for social and semantic reasons. But I just thought I would mention it... - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:22:52 -0800 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: Re: the angel in the house >In my opinion (and possibly only there), viewing women as anything >less >than human (demons, animals, forces of nature, angels) is in a >very real >sense _hatred_ of women as women. It really depends on who's doing the de-humanizing, and what their motivations are. Obviously viewing women as demons or animals is misogynist, but viewing women as angels is seeing them as *more* than human. Many Victorians - both male and female - really did see women as morally superior and more pure than men. The temperance and abolitionist movements were fuelled by this belief. Women in these movements felt it was their duty as women to raise men up to their moral level. Were these women misogynist? Self-hating? >Misogyny, on the other hand, is a world view that permeates a >person's >perspective. Like Dave Sim, surely, but what about Neal Stephenson? n. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:22:11 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: the angel in the house On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Natalie Jane wrote: > It really depends on who's doing the de-humanizing, and what their > motivations are. Obviously viewing women as demons or animals is > misogynist, but viewing women as angels is seeing them as *more* than human. I disagreee- it's seeing them as _other_ than human. Angels aren't more than human, they're entirely other. > Many Victorians - both male and female - really did see women as morally > superior and more pure than men. But women aren't morally superior to men, and when the Victorian female was unable to actually be more pure than a male, this undoubtedly led to some bad feelings, and is mirrored in the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. In other words, women who failed to be morally superior (ie: all of them), instead of being seen as merely human, were cast down as fallen women, whores. Putting a person on a pedestal can be functionally equivalent to setting them up for a fall. > The temperance and abolitionist movements were fuelled by this belief. > Women in these movements felt it was their duty as women to raise men > up to their moral level. Were these women misogynist? Self-hating? Well, they were certainly deluded. And they were setting themselves up for a very big fall, when their all-too-human attributes shone through. They may have even hated themselves for failing to live up to the high moral stnadard they set for themselves. > >Misogyny, on the other hand, is a world view that permeates a >person's > >perspective. > > Like Dave Sim, surely, but what about Neal Stephenson? You know, I will admit that I'm using this word for my own purposes, like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. So, to my way of thinking, Neal Stephenson's treatment of women as non-rational enigmas is tantamount to misogyny. I can totally understand why you and others on this list say I'm wrong- the dictionary backs you up and that's fine. I'm content to be wrong about this. But I think that treating women as better than men is functionally equivalent to hating them, because women, being merely human, will inevitably fail to live up to the stereotype, thus bringing censure upon themselves. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:01:59 -0500 From: "Fric Chaud" Subject: Re: If you think the iMac looks silly.... On 11 Jan 2002, at 16:28, steve wrote: > Take a look at some PC designs from Intel land - > > http://developer.intel.com/technology/easeofuse/conceptpc.htm Wow! Some of those are seriously stupid. Except that Japanese Flower one, Ikebana. After the CPU overheats, one would still have a lovely desktop paper organiser. Am I the only one who realises the world has gone mad? - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:05:45 -0500 From: "Fric Chaud" Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism On 11 Jan 2002, at 10:17, gSs wrote: > Conservatives hate libertarians as much as liberals hate libertarians. > Why is this? Because they are so much like Adolph Hitler? - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:30:46 -0500 From: "Fric Chaud" Subject: Re: robyn machitchcock On 11 Jan 2002, at 10:30, a Wheel Mouse Boy wrote: > You seem to imagine you invented the idea of "refuting" > them. My mouse wheel finger is getting tired of > scrolling past your blather, which I can get on any > mailing list or newsgroup on the net. You're being rude, and you use a wheel mouse! - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:00:58 -0500 From: "Fric Chaud" Subject: re: Imac, Umac, we all Mac? > Hey everyone - we're never gonna do more with the Mac/PC argumants > than piss the list off. Can we call a truce yet? It seems we can't. Perhaps if we make it personal instead; that never fails to inform and entertain. I think Hitler would not have liked me either. - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:56:48 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: a staunch moment of libertarianism gSs wrote: > Conservatives hate libertarians as much as liberals hate > libertarians. Why is this? because libertarians are reminders to conservatives that they don't really mean anything they say about liberty and individualism. ===== "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy . Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:34:21 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: reading I've been on vacation, so nothing too heavy (literally or figuratively). A couple of mystery novels: Amanda Cross _The James Joyce Murder_ (eh), Nevada Barr _Track of the Cat_ (pretty good) Attempted absurdity: Ian Frazier _Coyote v. Acme_ (some essays were brilliant, others had interesting premises but nothing much to flesh them out) Not sure yet (and heaviest book figuratively, lightest literally): Don DeLillo _The Body Artist_ Finished on the plane on the way out: _The Ambient Century_ Mark Prendergast: lots of little overviews of seemingly everyone who ever put out a record he liked. Much straining to make people fit his category (what the hell could possibly be "ambient" about Bob Dylan?), and as a writer he could very much use a better editor - but fun anyway, despite being at least 100 pages thicker than it needed to be (see: needs editor) Reading still at home: Russ Kick ed.: _You Are Being Lied To_ - compendium of sometimes persuasive, sometimes laughable, but always fairly interesting sideways and cynical views of politics, the media, etc. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::beliefs are ideas going bald:: __Francis Picabia__ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #16 *******************************